Director General of Railroads v. Kastenbaum

Decision Date12 November 1923
Docket NumberNo. 39,39
Citation68 L.Ed. 146,44 S.Ct. 52,263 U.S. 25
PartiesDIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS v. KASTENBAUM
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Thomas R. Wheeler, of Buffalo, N. Y., for petitioner.

Mr. Israel G. Holender, of Buffalo, N. Y., for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent brought an action in the Supreme Court of Erie county, New York, against the Director General of Railroads, seeking damages for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The trial court, at the close of the plaintiff's case, dismissed the cause of action for malicious prosecution, but allowed the trial to proceed to verdict and judgment for $500 for false imprisonment. The judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court and a motion for leave to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals of the state.

The brief for petitioner on the merits states the single question to be:

Does an action for false arrest lie against the petitioner, an officer of the United States government, under the provisions of section 10 of the Act of Congress of March 21, 1918 (40 Stat. c. 25, p. 451 [Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115 3/4 j]), providing for federal control of carriers?

Twenty-one tubs of butter were taken from a freight car of the Lehigh Valley Railroad in Buffalo. A trolley car of that city, late at night, collided with a horse and wagon, and in the wreck which followed the stolen tubs of butter were discovered. Two men who had been driving the wagon escaped. The detective force of the railway company sought to discover the owner of the horse, and thought they had traced the ownership to Kastenbaum, who was a huckster. The railroad detective notified the police authorities of the city, who detailed two policemen to accompany him to Kastenbaum's house, where they arrested him without warrant. They took him to a police station, and kept him there overnight and until he was released the next day on bail. He was brought to a hearing before an examining magistrate on a charge of grand larceny and burglary. After four or five adjournments, at the instance of the prosecution, the magistrate discharged Kastenbaum. His horse proved to be one of another color. Under the charge of the court the jury were permitted to return only compensatory damages.

Section 10 of the Federal Control Act provides:

'That carriers while under federal control shall be subject to all laws and liabilities as common carriers, whether arising under state or federal laws or at common law, except in so far as may be inconsistent with the provisions of this act or any other act applicable to such federal control or with any order of the President. Actions at law or suits in equity may be brought by and against such carriers and judgments rendered as now provided by law; and in any action at law or suit in equity against the carrier, no defense shall be made thereto upon the ground that the carrier is an instrumentality or agency of the federal government.'

By General Order No. 50, the executive so limited suits to be brought against carriers for injuries to person or property under the section as to exclude those for recovery of fines, penalties and forfeitures.

As we said in Missouri v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554, 563, 41 Sup. Ct. 593, 597 (65 L. Ed. 1087):

'The government undertook as carrier to observe all existing laws; it undertook to compensate any person injured through a departure by its agents or servants from their duty under such law; but it did not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
87 cases
  • Burwell v. Peyton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Vermont
    • September 14, 2015
    ...will amount to probable cause if proved[.]" Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 157 (2d Cir.2007) (quoting Dir. Gen. of R.Rs. v. Kastenbaum, 263 U.S. 25, 28, 44 S.Ct. 52, 68 L.Ed. 146 (1923) and Sanders v. Palmer, 55 F. 217, 220 (2d Cir.1893) ). The question of probable cause thus becomes a mixed......
  • United States v. Ross
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1982
    ...of the court would make his faith reasonable.' " Id., at 161-162, 45 S.Ct., at 288 (quoting Director General of Railroads v. Kastenbaum, 263 U.S. 25, 28, 44 S.Ct. 52, 53, 68 L.Ed. 146).10 In short, the exception to the warrant requirement established in Carroll —the scope of which we consid......
  • Terry v. State of Ohio
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1968
    ...committed. See, e.g., The Thompson, 3 Wall. 155, 18 L.Ed. 55; Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 24 L.Ed. 1035; Director General v. Kastenbaum, 263 U.S. 25, 44 S.Ct. 52, 68 L.Ed. 146; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed.2d 543; United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S......
  • Henning v. Miller
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • March 8, 1932
    ... ... in the case of Director General of Railroads v ... Kastenbaum, 44 S.Ct. 52, 263 U.S. 25, 27-28, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT